Digital.ai Agility vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Digital.ai and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Digital.ai is ranked #14 with an average rating of 9.0, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.1. Digital.ai holds a 1.5% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.7% mindshare. Additionally, 71% of Digital.ai users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Digital.ai Agility

Read 5 Digital.ai Agility reviews

1,072 Views
774 Comparison Views

71% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,488 Views
2,598 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Digital.ai Agility

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Digital.ai Agility are competing in the application lifecycle management and agile project management domains. Digital.ai Agility seems to have the upper hand due to its adaptive features and ROI satisfaction based on data comparisons.

Features: OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers comprehensive requirement management, test planning, and quality assurance integrations. Digital.ai Agility features advanced agile management tools, seamless collaboration features, and superior DevOps integration.

Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM could improve in reducing deployment time by enhancing cloud compatibility and streamlining infrastructure requirements. It can also enhance user interface adaptability and expand agile management capabilities. Digital.ai Agility could refine its traditional ALM features, enhance documentation, and expand its support for larger enterprise environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM / Quality Center typically has longer deployment times due to specific infrastructural settings needed, with a more structured support approach. Digital.ai Agility benefits from cloud-based deployment for a faster setup and provides agile-focused, responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM / Quality Center often involves a higher setup cost but offers extensive ALM solutions justifying the expense for traditional tool-seekers. Digital.ai Agility is noted for better ROI through flexible pricing and lower initial costs, aligning well with agile workflows, making it cost-effective for iterative project needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 839,319 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Digital.ai Agility

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

14th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Release Automation (6th), Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (9th), Value Stream Management Software (5th)

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

207

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Agility is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.7%, up from 5.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Debbie Brey

Technical Fellow at Boeing

A scalable, full-package solution with a tech support team that bends over backwards to help

There is room for improvement in getting the analytics portion of the solution more integrated with the rest of it. The feature I would like to see is already in their newer licensing structure, and that's the live integration between Agility, Jira and Azure DevOps. That's the piece that I think is really valuable.

Read full review

Paul Grossman

Lead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate

Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.

There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"With some of the other tools, you have to buy 20 different plugins to get to the same capability that comes with the basic Agility capability."

"It allows my clients to have one central tool to manage their agile projects."

"It can generate reports showing a burndown chart, burnup chart, and the planned vs actual velocity."

"Agility is highly flexible. It can do much more than what our client is doing with it. They use it in a defined way. Some at that company have a much broader knowledge of agile and SAFe, but they're given applications and a mandated way to work. We had to work within their parameters and provide an accurate transition so the data would be mapped and pushed through."

"For visualization capabilities, the automation capabilities make it possible to support the different personas. The features and capabilities are excellent and come with excellent support."

"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."

"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

"The solution is very user-friendly."

"It has a good response time."

"It was really good, customizable, and easy to use."

"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."

"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"The user interface can be improved by adding Save, Edit, Add, Cancel, and Return buttons to the popup windows that are displayed when you click on a child item."

"Improve how to create and track releases. Currently, I have to create child projects."

"The machine learning features are a new capability but could be improved. This is being worked by Digital.ai currently. Multicolor simulation, specifically, could be improved."

"There is room for improvement in getting the analytics portion of the solution more integrated with the rest of it."

"In my work as a contractor, it's always frustrating when a client has multiple software applications that don't talk to each other and they all perform the same function. That presents a huge challenge between their IT groups."

"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."

"The QA needs improvement."

"The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly."

"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

"The performance could be faster."

"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."

"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Comparing the pricing to other products, I think this solution is in the middle."

"You get what you pay for. Don't let your development teams dictate what the portfolio management team should use as the main tool."

"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."

"Compared to the market, the price is high."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."

"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

839,319 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Insurance Company

19%

Manufacturing Company

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Educational Organization

67%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...

See all answers

Comparisons

Jira vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 56% of the time

Jira Align vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 9% of the time

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 6% of the time

JIRA Portfolio vs Digital.ai Agility

Compared 6% of the time

More Digital.ai Agility Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 24% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 21% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Digital.ai Agility

March 2025

Download Digital.ai Agility product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

February 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

VersionOne Lifecycle, VersionOne, CollabNet VersionOne, Digital.ai Continuum

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Overview

Enterprise business agility rests on agile planning that scales and has the flexibility needed to meet the needs of customers and the market. Digital.ai Agility enables organizations to scale up agile from the team level across the product portfolio, improve collaboration and efficiency, and deliver software that provides more value.

Digital.ai

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Siemens Health Services (HS), Cerner Corporation, Aaron's, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, Kelley Blue Book, AOL, Axway, Tideworks, bwin Interactive Entertainment, AG, Intergraph, Eos Group, PeopleCube, Liquid Machines

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

March 2025

Free Report: Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

839,319 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Digital.ai Agility vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.